Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities for the Gowanus Canal Site

Department of the Army – US Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities April 2003 Table of Contents List of Figures ii Acknowledgements iii Executive Summary iv Purpose 1 Overview 2 Great Lakes dredging requirements 2 Sources of sediments and sediment contamination 4 Dredged material management 6 History of Great Lakes confined disposal facilities 8 CDF Designs 12 Material containment 12 Water management 15 Environmental protection 16 CDF Operation and Management 19 Dredged material placement 20 Dewatering and consolidation 21 Plant and wildlife management 21 Site security and safety 22 CDF Research, Monitoring and Evaluation 23 Dike construction and structural integrity 24 Dredged material placement 25 CDF discharges and contaminant release 25 Dewatering and consolidation 28 Vegetation and wildlife 28 Coordination and Outreach 30 Interagency coordination 31 Public outreach 33 Environmental Performance 35 Environmental compliance 35 Significance of contaminant releases 36 Impacts on fish and wildlife resources 37 Comparison to alternatives 38 Cumulative impacts 40 Future Directions and Needs for CDFs 43 Source control 44 CDF modifications 45 Reclaiming usable materials from CDFs 46 Emerging issues 47 Summary and Conclusions 48 References 51 Appendix A - Legislation Appendix B - CDF Fact Sheets Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities: i April 2003 List of Figures Figure 1 Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, MI 2 Figure 2 Hydraulic dredge at Indiana Harbor Canal, IN (circa 1905) 3 Figure 3 Lorain Harbor, OH 3 Figure 4 Hydraulic dredge at Waukegan Harbor, IL 4 Figure 5 Clamshell bucket dredge 4 Figure 6 Agricultural land use 5 Figure 7 Beach nourishment at St. Joseph, MI 6 Figure 8 Sediment sampling using gravity core 7 Figure 9 Open water disposal from hopper dredge 8 Figure 10 Grassy Island CDF, Detroit, MI 9 Figure 11 Island 18 CDF, Toledo, OH 9 Figure 12 Construction of Dike 13 CDF in Cleveland, OH in 1967 10 Figure 13 Kenosha Harbor CDF, Kenosha, WI 10 Figure 14 Windmill Island CDF, Holland, MI 11 Figure 15 Dike cross section, Lorain Harbor CDF, Lorain, OH 13 Figure 16 Dike cross section, Kewaunee CDF, Kewaunee, WI 13 Figure 17 Dike cross section, Milwaukee Harbor CDF, Milwaukee, WI 13 Figure 18 Dike cross section, Point Mouillee CDF, Monroe, MI 14 Figure 19 Dike construction, Sterling State Park CDF, Monroe, MI 14 Figure 20 Dike cross section, Riverview CDF, Holland, MI 14 Figure 21 Discharge from hopper dredge to Saginaw Bay CDF, Saginaw, MI 15 Figure 22 Pond at Riverview CDF, Holland, MI 16 Figure 23 Contaminant loss pathways; In-water CDFs 17 Figure 24 Adjustable overflow weir 17 Figure 25 Filter cells, Sterling State Park CDF, Monroe, MI 18 Figure 26 Keweenaw Waterway CDF, MI 18 Figure 27 Small Boat Harbor CDF, Buffalo, NY 19 Figure 28 Pipeline discharge to Chicago Area CDF, Chicago, IL 20 Figure 29 Discharge to in-water CDF by hopper and sluice 20 Figure 30 Truck discharge to Point Mouillee CDF, Monroe, MI 20 Figure 31 Cells at Bayport CDF, Green Bay, WI 21 Figure 32 Vegetation inside Renard Island CDF, Green Bay, WI 21 Figure 33 Fisherman on CDF dike 22 Figure 34 Dike repairs 24 Figure 35 Water quality monitoring 25 Figure 36 Wildlife at Saginaw Bay CDF, Saginaw, MI 28 Figure 37 Times Beach CDF, Buffalo, NY 29 Figure 38 CDF effluent discharge 36 Figure 39 Saginaw Bay CDF, Saginaw, MI 38 Figure 40 Sediment loading from St. Joseph River 39 Figure 41 Demonstration of composting technologies at Milwaukee CDF 39 Figure 42 Cleanup dredging at Saginaw River 40 Figure 43 Profile of PCB concentrations with depth in Chicago River 44 Figure 44 Buffer strip 45 Figure 45 Sand mining at Erie Pier CDF, Duluth, MN 46 Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities: ii April 2003 Acknowledgments This report is a collaborative effort of the following offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: USACE USEPA Great Lakes & Ohio River Division Great Lakes National Program Office Buffalo District Region 5 Chicago District Detroit District Environmental Laboratory, Engineering Research & Development Center The opinions and conclusions expressed in this report reflect the combined knowledge and understanding of staff from these offices who have worked together on individual projects, coordinated through numerous committees and working groups, and conducted collaborative studies and research on dredging and management of contaminated sediments from Great Lakes harbors and channels. The draft report was compiled by Black & Veatch, Inc. under contract DACW49-99-Q-0030 with the Buffalo District. Joe Tyloch of the Buffalo District was the project manager. Jan Miller of the Great Lakes & Ohio River Division was the editor of the final draft. Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities: iii April 2003 Executive Summary Contaminated bottom sediments are present in many of the Federal navigation projects in the Great Lakes and every one of the Areas of Concern designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. “Restrictions on dredging activities” is one of the fourteen beneficial use impairments identified in the Agreement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredges about 4 million cubic yards of sediments annually from Great Lakes projects. About half of these dredged materials are contaminated to a degree that restricts their disposal. Through Section 123 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, as well as project-specific authorities, the Corps has constructed and/or operated 45 confined disposal facilities, or CDFs to manage over 90 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments dredged from Great Lakes harbors and channels in the past forty years at a Federal cost of $300 million (construction costs unadjusted for inflation). In this report, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) present a summary of information about the existing CDFs and an assessment of their cumulative impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Individual CDFs have been planned, sited, and designed in partnership with non-Federal sponsors, including states, local governments and port authorities. The size, shape, and design of individual CDFs have been selected to fit dredging needs of the harbor(s) and channel(s) served, the physical and chemical characteristics of the dredged material, local conditions and resources, and the interests of the non-Federal sponsor. CDFs have been planned and sited with full opportunity for public and agency review and input. The impacts of CDFs on the Great Lakes ecosystem have been considered from physical, chemical, biological, and socio-economic perspectives. Environmental assessments and impact statements were prepared for facilities in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, the monitoring and performance of operating CDFs has been conducted in cooperation with state and Federal resource agencies. Great Lakes CDFs have routinely complied with all applicable Federal and state environmental requirements. The construction and operation of CDFs have produced both negative and positive physical effects. Over half of the CDFs were constructed at in-water sites, resulting in the loss of lake and river bottom habitat. However, the CDF dikes have created reef-like habitat for fisheries and the interior areas have supported dense vegetation and a temporary habitat for fish and wildlife. CDFs have also created new lands along the shoreline that have been used to support community waterfront and recreational development plans. From a chemical perspective, CDFs retain a high percentage of the contaminants they receive, and discharge effluents that consistently meet state water quality requirements. Studies have indicated that the long-term release of contaminants from CDFs may be calculated using computer models, but cannot be detected with conventional or advanced monitoring techniques, and are not considered ecologically significant. Cumulatively, CDFs have facilitated the Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities: iv April 2003 removal of 90 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the Great Lakes and tributaries, of which over 70 million were from Areas of Concern. The removal of sediment contaminants provided by the CDF program represents a substantial contribution to the goals of Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans. Biologically, the CDFs have produced losses and gains in habitat that appear to be of comparable value. Wildlife that inhabit or visit CDFs may uptake increased levels of some contaminants, and management practices are being used to reduce this effect. In the lakes and rivers outside the CDFs, biological communities are exposed to lower levels of contamination as a result of the removal and confinement of contaminated sediments from navigation channels. CDFs have enabled the continued, safe transport of goods and materials at Great Lakes harbors and channels. Commercial and recreational use of these waterways is a major contributor to the national and regional economies as well as the history and social identity of many communities along the Great Lakes shoreline. Significant reductions to the loading of contaminants to the Great Lakes have been achieved in the past 40 years through pollution prevention and control measures. However, many navigation channels continue to receive contaminated sediments from adjacent or upstream deposits and loadings from non-point pollution sources. CDFs continue to be needed to manage contaminated sediments dredged from Great

Load more